Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence

Starting the discussion page & refuting some points.
I'd like to counter some of 58.10.64.46's arguments from this project page. First and foremost, the "topic in question" is not whether Ashkenazim are more intelligent. It is whether a page called "Ashkenazi intelligence" is appropriate for wikipedia. Also, there is by no means a "main argument" on the page about Ashkenazi intelligence that has an "overwhelmingly obvious correct answer." . . . . . To refute point by point: (1) Being a "common point of view" does not qualify something to have its own wikipedia page. (2) The intelligence page states unequivocally that "IQ", "g", and "intelligence" are three different entities, with intelligence being "used in ordinary discourse to refer to cognitive ability. However, it is generally regarded as too imprecise to be useful for a scientific treatment of the subject." So nobody is trying to "quash discussion" -- it is simply not possible to have an intelligent discussion about the topic of "Ashkenazi intelligence". (3) 58.10.64.46's "personal opinion" about the intelligence levels of Ashkenazim is not relevant to whether "Ashkenazi intelligence" should have its own wikipedia entry. 58.10.64.46 dismisses legitimate concerns about the POV & potentially racist nature of this article as "political axe-grinding". "Intelligence" is a subjective, POV term. So just as most tolerant people would not support an article called "African-American intelligence" that cited the community's low average IQ score and speculated about a genetic component, so should we not support an article called Ashkenazi intelligence. It is impossible for this article to overcome these problems. It should be deleted. Organ123 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An article on African American intelligence if written in an NPOV and well sourced fashion would be fine. Similarly, an article on how Ashkenazim have tones of nast genetic diseaes and how that's very likely from close inbreeding would also be fine if you have reliable sources. JoshuaZ 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm arguing that it would be impossible to write an article on "African-American intelligence" in a NPOV fashion. However, describing genetic diseases and inbreeding can be done in a NPOV fashion, so I wouldn't necessarily oppose such an article. Organ123 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So why is intelligence different? I agree it might be hard to write a neutral one, but it would be hard for any of these topics. JoshuaZ 04:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's because "intelligence" is a subjective, POV term "generally regarded as too imprecise to be useful for a scientific treatment of the subject," according the intelligence page. If the page were about some scientifically measurable or universally defined concept pertaining to Ashkenazim (say, genetic diseases), I might have a different take. (Incidentally, if the page were called "Ashkenazi IQ" I would have similar concerns, since the concept of "IQ" is itself so controversial.) Organ123 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But people have made various approximate measures such as IQ and scientists routinely use those. Given that, there is no issue writing an article about it if we have enough reliable sources. JoshuaZ 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree (unsurprisingly, I'm sure). IQ is not an "approximate measure" of intelligence since there is no agreement on what intelligence is. Nor is there even an agreement on what IQ is, or what exactly it's measuring. However, there are connotations and subjective ideas corresponding with the notion of "intelligence" which lend themselves, when applied to "ethnic groups", to POV and potentially racist discussion. I think it's great that there are some facts with reliable sources in the article, but I think those facts and sources would be better used in a different context. Organ123 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My only comment is I wish editors would stop creating straw man arguments on whether african american are criminals or more intelligent, etc as a means of refuting this article.
 * It is not the discussion at hand, Organ123 has stated most succinctly is not whether Ashkenazim are more intelligent. It is whether a page called "Ashkenazi intelligence" is appropriate for wikipedia.. This AfD has nothing to do with any other fictive pages editors may wish to imagine exists which they feel exaggerates the situation or may prove or disprove the validity of this article. We are !voting or more correctly expressing our opinion on this article, it's content, notablility, verifibility, etc and not on any other articles. Khu  kri  08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing about the nature of this page, Khukri. On the notion of mentioning hypothetical pages about African-Americans: I can't speak for everyone, but I am trying to apply the principle of universality. So if it's OK to have a page about Ashkenazi "intelligence", then if we believe in the principle of universality, we must agree that it's also OK to have comparable pages about African-American intelligence, Hispanic Intelligence, Muslim Intelligence, etc. That seems only fair, unless we think there is something inherently different about Ashkenazi Jews, where we can have a page about their intelligence but not everyone else's. So to quote from the universality page: "A proposition [in this case, to have a page on an ethnicity's intelligence] is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction." Organ123 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ashkenazi intelligence is not appropriate for Wikipedia. But Heather Harmon is perfectly suitable. What if I wanted to look in Wikipedia to verify someone's claim that many Ashkenazi Jews live in poverty, are illiterate, are physically violent, and have poor work skills and attitudes? If there is no article, I would most likely accept that characterization.Lestrade 16:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade